The Tale of Two Pharmacies

gipper · 06-22-2011, 08:55 AM

Michigan Walgreens Pharmacist Jeremy Hoven Fired After Shooting at Robbers
In Benton Township, Michigan, two armed robbers wearing masks burst into a near-deserted Walgreens at 4:30 a.m. To pharmacist Jeremy Hoven, it was a prescription for trouble. So he filled it with hot lead.

Drawing his own gun, he fired at the attackers and drove them off, saving not just himself but two Walgreens co-workers as well as the pharmacy's valuable prescription drugs.

By way of saying thanks, Walgreens fired him last week.
Michigan Walgreens Pharmacist Jeremy Hoven Fired After Shooting at Robbers - ABC News

Four dead in New York area pharmacy shooting

Four people were killed Sunday when a shooter opened fire inside a Long Island pharmacy, police said.

The shooting, which was reported to police shortly after 10 a.m. ET at Haven Drugs in Medford, was likely the result of a robbery, said Rob Busweiler, a spokesman with the Suffolk County Police Department.

Two customers and two employees are thought to be among the dead, he said.

CNN affiliate WPIX reported all the victims were shot "execution-style," in the head at close range.Four dead in New York area pharmacy shooting - CNN

Do you think ALL Americans will learn something from these two incidents?

David · 06-22-2011, 10:30 AM

It's the lawsuit culture. If people die, its a tragedy. If criminals get shot at and live to tell the tail, it's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

DosEquis · 06-22-2011, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by gipper

Do you think ALL Americans will learn something from these two incidents?

Use the drive through at pharmacies?

gipper · 06-22-2011, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by David

It's the lawsuit culture. If people die, its a tragedy. If criminals get shot at and live to tell the tail, it's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

My post went completely over your head.

David · 06-22-2011, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by gipper

My post went completely over your head.

No, you're just being too much of an ideologue to see reality. This isn't some liberal plot to take away your guns, this is a company avoiding a frivolous lawsuit.

gipper · 06-22-2011, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by David

No, you're just being too much of an ideologue to see reality. This isn't some liberal plot to take away your guns, this is a company avoiding a frivolous lawsuit.

Good Lord....you still missed it.

I guess I should have stated my opinion clearly so liberals would comprehend.

In one store a law abiding citizen used his handgun to stop a crime. In the other store, no one had a gun to protect themselves from the criminal and all were murdered execution style.

What do you think is the moral of the story?

DosEquis · 06-22-2011, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by gipper

good lord....you still missed it.

I guess i should have stated my opinion clearly so liberals would comprehend.

In one store a law abiding citizen used his handgun to stop a crime. In the other store, no one had a gun to protect themselves from the criminal and all were murdered execution style.

What do you think is the moral of the story?

to use the drive through!

gipper · 06-22-2011, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

to use the drive through!

Why do you keep mucking up this wonderful forum with your idiocy? If you can't add something of value, don't post. Please listen to me. I am tiring of your childishness.

How many cheap stinking Mexican beers have you had today?

David · 06-22-2011, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by gipper

Good Lord....you still missed it.

I guess I should have stated my opinion clearly so liberals would comprehend.

In one store a law abiding citizen used his handgun to stop a crime. In the other store, no one had a gun to protect themselves from the criminal and all were murdered execution style.

What do you think is the moral of the story?

If you're not interested in why this happened, why did you bring it up?

gipper · 06-22-2011, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by David

If you're not interested in why this happened, why did you bring it up?

Why this happened?????

What are you talking about?

David · 06-22-2011, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Crash and Burn

Why this happened?????

What are you talking about?

The guy got fired not because Walgreens hates guns but because the thief survived and would have done the American thing and sued (and likely won). Firing the pharmacist gives them legal cover, it's the same reason doctors preform defensive medicine even though it's pointless and jacks up costs, it's cheaper then getting sued.

Donkey® · 06-22-2011, 02:47 PM

First, if Walgreens has a policy about not having guns at the workplace...that seems like cause to fire him to me. Or are we all of a sudden jumping ship from corporatism to embracing workers rights?

David · 06-22-2011, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

First, if Walgreens has a policy about not having guns at the workplace...that seems like cause to fire him to me. Or are we all of a sudden jumping ship from corporatism to embracing workers rights?

That may be the excuse but it's the lawsuit problem in this country that actually got him fired, had he actually killed the guy he'd still have a job.

illavbill · 06-22-2011, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

to use the drive through!

awesome. The drive thru kicks ass. PLUS you can speed off and not get killed / shot by robbers or accidentally shot by the pharmacist.

CharlieK · 06-22-2011, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by David

The guy got fired not because Walgreens hates guns but because the thief survived and would have done the American thing and sued (and likely won). Firing the pharmacist gives them legal cover, it's the same reason doctors preform defensive medicine even though it's pointless and jacks up costs, it's cheaper then getting sued.

You may actually be on to something there. That is why the 'double tap' is so important to use, especially with 9mm and less.

The 45ACP is always the preferred round of choice, if putting someone down permanently is important. That is the lesson to learn. The 1911 Browning does the trick every time it is tried.

Incidentally, the M1911 is about to be reintroduced to the military in the future, once those pussy 9mm Berettas are scrapped. Thank you NATO.

David · 06-22-2011, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by CharlieK

You may actually be on to something there. That is why the 'double tap' is so important to use, especially with 9mm and less.

The 45ACP is always the preferred round of choice, if putting someone down permanently is important. That is the lesson to learn. The 1911 Browning does the trick every time it is tried.

Incidentally, the M1911 is about to be reintroduced to the military in the future, once those pussy 9mm Berettas are scrapped. Thank you NATO.

It's screwed up, isn't it? Had he killed the guy Walgreens and the police would of chalked it up to self-defense and let it go but because he decided only to scare him off, he gets fired so the thief won't have a legal reason to sue. If sky high medical costs won't convince you, the idea that not committing homicide being punishable should make you understand the need for legal reforms in regards to frivolous lawsuits.

WickedLou9 · 06-24-2011, 08:50 AM

Walgreen's is a private corporation and if they want to prevent employees from carrying guns that is their right. If you don't like it, you don't have to work there. Simple enough. The guy got fired for violating the terms of his employment. Sorry.

The second story is sad. But the two are not connected. You are obviously trying to imply that if the pharmacist had been armed then the crisis could have been averted. Maybe. But probably not. One person against a gang of armed people will never end well. The result would have been the same. Never the less, you are still talking about forcing a private corporation to change their rules of employment which is inherently against your own stated viewpoints.

If Americans learn anything from this, which they wont, it will be that drugs need to be legalized so that armed gangs don't rob pharmacies, and you shouldn't violate the terms of your employment if you want to keep your job.

gipper · 06-25-2011, 08:30 AM

Most companies do not allow employees to carry guns. Its a dumb rule which results in employees being defenseless and criminals KNOW THIS!

The reason I started this thread is guns in the hands of the law abiding PREVENTS CRIME. The Michigan pharmacy had an employee who not only defended himself but also everyone else in the store which prevented the scum from killing and stealing. The NY pharmacy was not so lucky and the result was horrendous, but apparently libs don't care about this.

The moral of the story - More guns equals less crime!

But, it is interesting that the libs who posted in this thread thought the debate was about Walgreens anti-gun policy and the fear of lawsuits....with no mention of the heroic actions of the MI pharmacist...and no mention of the ruthless executions by the subhuman in the NY case.

gipper · 06-25-2011, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Walgreen's is a private corporation and if they want to prevent employees from carrying guns that is their right. If you don't like it, you don't have to work there. Simple enough. The guy got fired for violating the terms of his employment. Sorry.

The second story is sad. But the two are not connected. You are obviously trying to imply that if the pharmacist had been armed then the crisis could have been averted. Maybe. But probably not. One person against a gang of armed people will never end well. The result would have been the same. Never the less, you are still talking about forcing a private corporation to change their rules of employment which is inherently against your own stated viewpoints.

If Americans learn anything from this, which they wont, it will be that drugs need to be legalized so that armed gangs don't rob pharmacies, and you shouldn't violate the terms of your employment if you want to keep your job.

Do you not see how illogical your post is? You claim the NY case probably would not be averted even if they were armed. Yet, the MI case proves that being armed averted crime. Unbelievable!

And, whats this gang of armed people about? You are not informed. The NY case was committed by ONE SUBHUMAN not a GANG. And, the MI case involved two subhumans.

Legalize drugs in the answer according the LibbyLou. You are most illogical.

WickedLou9 · 06-27-2011, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by gipper

Do you not see how illogical your post is? You claim the NY case probably would not be averted even if they were armed. Yet, the MI case proves that being armed averted crime. Unbelievable!

And, whats this gang of armed people about? You are not informed. The NY case was committed by ONE SUBHUMAN not a GANG. And, the MI case involved two subhumans.

Legalize drugs in the answer according the LibbyLou. You are most illogical.

It's not illogical at all. You just don't have the capacity to understand what I was telling you. You seem to lack the ability to understand that anecdotal evidence is not meaningful. You are making the logical jump of assuming that because you saw one instance of something, than all instances must also be like the one. There is no line of reasoning that can get you to that conclusion. It's void of logic. The fact that you call me illogical only makes it more amusing. You just did the logical equivalent of saying " I just saw a red car get into an accident, but that blue car there just missed the accident. Red cars must be less safe than blue cars". That is precisely what you did and yet you call me illogical.

The MI case does not prove anything. When you pull a gun on an armed assailant, the only thing you are assuring is that someone is going to get shot. Most armed robberies don't result in shootings. The gun is simply used as a threat of violence to get compliance from victims. The second you respond to that threat with another gun, you are assuring that the situation will end in shooting and death. It may be the criminal who gets shot, but maybe not. What you have accomplished is that you have removed from the universe of possibility the potential outcome where no one gets shot.

Also... you totally ignored that section where I talked about a private company's right to determine it's own terms of employment. I guess it didn't fit with your viewpoints or caused some sort of contradiction in your half functioning mind which simply couldn't be resolved so you ignored it.